ArticleEuropean radiology2011
Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.
Article in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Faster and Better: How Anomaly Detection Can Accelerate and Improve Reporting of Head Computed Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Factors Influencing the False Positive Rate in CT Lung Cancer Screening.Academic radiology · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Diagnostic Efficacy in a Developing South-East Asian CountryAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Chest X-ray evaluation training: impact of normal and abnormal image ratio and instructional sequence.Medical education · 2019Article
- Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes.European radiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in population-based breast cancer screening programmes.
methodsWe evaluated 1,440,384 single-read screening mammograms, corresponding to 471,112 women aged 45-69 years participating in four Spanish programmes between 1990 and 2006. The mammograms were interpreted by 72 radiologists.
resultsThe overall percentage of false-positive results was 5.85% and that for false-positives resulting in an invasive procedure was 0.38%. Both the risk of false-positives overall and of false-positives leading to an invasive procedure significantly decreased (p < 0.001) with greater reading volume in the previous year: OR 0.77 and OR 0.78, respectively, for a reading volume 500-1,999 mammograms and OR 0.59 and OR 0.60 for a reading volume of >14,999 mammograms with respect to the reference category (<500). The risk of both categories of false-positives was also significantly reduced (p < 0.001) as radiologists' years of experience increased: OR 0.96 and OR 0.84, respectively, for 1 year's experience and OR 0.72 and OR 0.73, respectively, for more than 4 years' experience with regard to the category of <1 year's experience.
conclusionRadiologist experience is a determining factor in the risk of a false-positive result in breast cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21643887What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.